or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › things that are making you happy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

things that are making you happy - Page 2106

post #31576 of 45971
Quote:
Originally Posted by acidboy View Post

I dunno, brah... I do have body wash, but I just don't know why I still use bar soap.... oh, and screw you for the man on the moon thing, we have candidates.

i find that bar soap dries out my skinn
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba View Post

I actually like a lot of the music of the era, but never reach for it because I hate all of the radio-played songs so much.
When it comes to classic rock, which now includes a bulk of the music created in the 80's I would lean on 80's music for my favorites.

do you have albums? i find that almost anytime i bought an album because i liked a particular song i had heard on the radio or in a movie... there were at least a handful of songs that were way better than than whatever popular song lead me to the album.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

Aerosmith sucks. Van Halen sucks. The Doors suck. What do they have in common? American. The British always do classic rock the best.

the doors do not suck. you suck.
post #31577 of 45971
I was one of the people who was really into a lot of those classic rock bands in high school, but I don't have nearly the same affinity for them now that I'm older. That's not to say there aren't profoundly talented, influential bands among them; I just don't get into most of them like I once did.

That said, my favorite band from that era is Lynyrd Skynyrd (though I know they were a little later than the halcyon days of the bands most people are referencing). They're probably the only band from the classic rock era that I like as much now as I did when I was younger. I think they end up unfairly excluded from a lot of conversation because it's easy to pigeonhole them into a "PLAAAYYY FREEEEEBIIIIIIRD" stereotype, but that underestimates how awesome they were.

I'm also generally still a pretty big Stones fan. To me, there are Beatles people and there are Stones people. You can like both, but never equally. I'm definitely a Stones fan.

And Neil Young sucks.
post #31578 of 45971
What about the Wipers? Too late?
post #31579 of 45971
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

And Neil Young sucks.

 

So true. Every time I see him in an interview talking about his goofy lossless music format I cringe.

post #31580 of 45971
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMartNJ View Post

So true. Every time I see him in an interview talking about his goofy lossless music format I cringe.
Deets?
Edit: Okay, he likes lossless. I don't see anything goofy about that.
post #31581 of 45971
fuck this slow internet double post bullshit -.-
It's NOT making me happy!
post #31582 of 45971
I agree with him. Lossy rules.
post #31583 of 45971
I love that we have this same classic rock discussion going in two different threads. Hilarious.
post #31584 of 45971
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

I agree with him. Lossy rules.
Lossless is good, yes. The thing is that you won't hear a difference over a well encoded mp3 file with ≥192kbps. It's just the crappy encoded ones that suck. So you'll always be on the safe side--if only for your reassurance--with lossless, but you won't hear more over a well encoded mp3 file.
post #31585 of 45971
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post


And Neil Young sucks.

You would be incorrect. Cinnamon Girl and The Needle and the Damage Done would be enough to warrant his place in this conversation but that is hardly the catalogue.
post #31586 of 45971
Quote:
Originally Posted by b1os View Post

Lossless is good, yes. The thing is that you won't hear a difference over a well encoded mp3 file with ≥192kbps. It's just the crappy encoded ones that suck. So you'll always be on the safe side--if only for your reassurance--with lossless, but you won't hear more over a well encoded mp3 file.


Yes. He also talks about how warm and rich vinyl was but then goes on to talk about his "perfect" format. Vinyl wasn't rich because it was lossless, it was the scratch and the mechanical connection that people liked. His nostalgia is totally misplaced.

 

This is his deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_%28audio_format%29

post #31587 of 45971
Quote:
Originally Posted by b1os View Post

Lossless is good, yes. The thing is that you won't hear a difference over a well encoded mp3 file with ≥192kbps. It's just the crappy encoded ones that suck. So you'll always be on the safe side--if only for your reassurance--with lossless, but you won't hear more over a well encoded mp3 file.

FWIW, I rip everything at 320
post #31588 of 45971
Quote:
Originally Posted by aravenel View Post

I love that we have this same classic rock discussion going in two different threads. Hilarious.

Don't forget the thread I started too. laugh.gif
post #31589 of 45971
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I was one of the people who was really into a lot of those classic rock bands in high school, Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
but I don't have nearly the same affinity for them now that I'm older. That's not to say there aren't profoundly talented, influential bands among them; I just don't get into most of them like I once did.

That said, my favorite band from that era is Lynyrd Skynyrd (though I know they were a little later than the halcyon days of the bands most people are referencing). They're probably the only band from the classic rock era that I like as much now as I did when I was younger. I think they end up unfairly excluded from a lot of conversation because it's easy to pigeonhole them into a "PLAAAYYY FREEEEEBIIIIIIRD" stereotype, but that underestimates how awesome they were.

I'm also generally still a pretty big Stones fan. To me, there are Beatles people and there are Stones people. You can like both, but never equally. I'm definitely a Stones fan.

And Neil Young sucks.

1. you are not supposed to get less cool as you get older.

2. people who pigeonhole LS are morons. its a shame about the crash, they had so much more great music to make. free bird is a great song, but not my favorite from them. i can listen to their albums cover to cover, over and over.

3. im not sure about that last bit, i do like both the stones and the beatles a whole hell of a lot. i do have more beatles albums than stones albums, but id be hard pressed to say i like the beatles better per say.

4. i like a few of NYs songs on his own, but that is about it.
post #31590 of 45971
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMartNJ View Post


Yes. He also talks about how warm and rich vinyl was but then goes on to talk about his "perfect" format. Vinyl wasn't rich because it was lossless, it was the scratch and the mechanical connection that people liked. His nostalgia is totally misplaced.

This is his deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_%28audio_format%29

Well the nostalgia is part of it, but I remember doing some experiments with a friend of mine years ago listening to 78's, 45's, and 33 1/3's and CD's on the same system, same songs and such. Essentially the lows were much deeper and highs much higher on the slower speed vinyl. Cd's sound compressed as hell compared to them. I think the conversion of analog to zeros and ones there is a loss of extreme frequencies. It is very apparent.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › things that are making you happy